“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." ~ Matthew 7:6. I'm just casting pearls of wisdom before Swine Liberals, knowing in advance they think they're too smart to agree.

Saturday, May 05, 2007

What Do You Dislike About America?

"I have to tell you that we are facing a situation, where if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all." ~ Tom Tancredo

You just have to hear MSNBC's David Gregory's analysis of the Republican debate Thursday night. Anyone that doesn't think MSNBC is Liberally biased after watching this clip must have tapioca for brains.

I haven't been able to find video replay of the debate, but Mark Levin had this to say:

"NBC can't decide whether its hosts should be blatant liberal partisans or journalists, and it shows. Chris Matthews is not a professional journalist. He's a political junkie with deep Democrat party roots. Many of his questions weren't intended to elicit a candidate's substantive views but to play gotcha and embarrass."

And then he said, "Moreover, Keith Olbermann prides himself on carrying water for George Soros, Media Matters, and the rest of the liberal unintelligensia. His commentaries, including the one delivered last night about 30 minutes before the start of the debate, bordered on the imbecilic. When he finished delivering it, he then immediately pretended to pull on his news analyst pants."

Finally he said, "If the debate had been managed properly — apart from too many interruptions with silly questions and stage-play by the questioners — an effort would have been made to draw contrasts between the Republican candidates and the Democrat candidates. After all, that's the bottom line. Instead, a cast of Bush-haters were more interested in trying to goad the candidates into attacking the lame-duck Republican administration."

I didn't get a chance to watch the debate. I was working. I wish I had now. I have heard some sound bites (bytes?) of some of the questions asked, and now I can't find any of them. The only question I remember being asked from the sound bites is my title question: "What do you dislike most about America?"

That sounds accusatory to me. And knowing that the question came from a Californian increases the odds that it was more an accusation than a legitimate question.

For the record, Mitt Romney had an excellent answer to that question.

Despite it being an obvious "gotcha" question meant to embarrass Romney, I would like to respond to it, myself.

What I dislike the most about America is the lack of border enforcement and the way our politicians look the other way regarding the problem.

But, I have an idea of a solution.

I don't believe we can round up all illegals and deport them. There are simply far too many of them, and we don't have the resources. But we can insist that those who want to stay learn conversational English. Those illegals who do can stay and apply for citizenship. Those who refuse should be deported.

Of course, those who have felony records should be deported regardless.

This idea would solve two problems. We will get rid of the illegals who don't really want to assimilate into America, and the ones who really do will learn how to communicate with the rest of us.

We should not be forced to learn other country's languages. This is our country, not theirs. If they want to live here as American citizens, they should be expected to assimilate themselves into our culture. We should not be forced to have to accommodate theirs. There is nothing wrong with celebrating ones heritage, but there is no reason we should have to celebrate their heritage along with them.

It's a simple solution that will not be simple to implement. Nevertheless, it is worth the effort, in my opinion.

42 comments:

Mark; it may true, as you say, that there are far too many illegals here to round up and send back, but that should not mean that we should be offering them free education, free medical and dental or free anything else. I still maintain that if they really want to become U.S. citizens, then besides learning English, the should go back to their home country, at least for 1 to 2 years and apply for leagal immigration.

Also, our government MUST cut the crap and get our borders secured, no more excuses. This MUST be done BEFORE any kind of guest worker program is instituted. Our government also needs to understand that we do not need unlimited immigration either.

Just of the top of my head, what I dislike about America is how money buys elections. But in a free country, more or less, I confess I know of know constitutional way to fix that. Which means we need some kind of constitutional amendment. But what would it say?

Hmmm. I wonder if the apparent disparity between numbers of peeps watching each "debate" is because y'all -- that is, the GOP -- are renting your clothing and sitting in sacakcloth and ashes just hopinhg you get a real conservative candidate this time, and the other side, myself included, would, indeed, vote for a yellow dog over any Republican ever. E. Ver. (Barring one of those historical seachanges that no one ever sees coming, like, you know, the Civil War, when the most liberal dictator president in history, a Republican, "held the country together" by inciting it to war against itself.

MSNBC is so left its disgusting. Matthews show, "Hardball, " is only that when he is questioning a Republican. Otherwise he throws only softballs.

I at first could not believe the question. Then I started thinking that liberals automatically assume that everyone like they hate America either completely or in one way or another.

I did like Tancredos answer though!

By the way the next debate is May15th in Columbia SC and FOX news is doing it with Brit Hume moderating. I have press credentials and will be there to cover it.

We will have opportunity to have private one on one interviews with each candidate after the debate.

Also before we will be mingling with Hume and the Fox crew as well as Sean Hannity who will do his radio show and Hannity and Combs live from the Debate sight.

Really looking forward to it. I'll be posting an article on Wednesday at my site soliciting questions in the comments that readers would like presented to any particular candidiate. So please stop by and drop a few. You always bring up some good thoughts and I would be very interested in your input!

What I dislike about America are so-called Americans who want to dismantle the U.S. Constitution and the values of this country in the name of bigotry and on the backs of the 3000 dead, in the 9/11 attacks.

Be happy that you didn't watch the debate, it saved you from your blood pressure spiking like mine. I was livid at certain points with the absurdity of Chris Matthews pretending to be an objective journalist. It was so unbelievably biased I thought I was going to be ill.

All this after Democrats refuse to be on Fox for a debate. I can guarantee you the moderators on Fox would never be dripping with conservative bias the way Matthews was with liberal bias.

And I can't stand to watch Keith Olbermann, that man is a rabid leftist.

Totally disagree with your premise, Mark, about illegals staying if they learn English. I don't care if they all had phd's in English - they are illegal.

Want to end the illegal invasion? Simple. Deny government benefits to them. Deny public education to them. Build a 2,000 mile wall along the border. Deny Federal funds to cities that declare themselves "sanctuary cities." Immediate deportation of illegals caught (the government can't locate 600,000 who were ordered deported, but booked off). Deny driver licenses & in-state tution to them. Step up raids of companies suspected of hiring them. Finally, use draconian punishments for all employers who knowingly hire them.

We can rid ourselves of them if we have the will. Through attrition alone the numbers will drop dramatically. But we don't have the will.

The debates were a joke - Why the GOP agreed to Matthews hosting it is beyond me. The questions were inane & an embarrassment to MSNBC. Wonder how it would have gone if Matthews hosted the Lincoln-Douglas debates? "Mr. Lincoln, you said you lived in a log cabin, but was that more for show, knowing that you had Presidential ambitions?" "Mr. Douglas, does your wife call you Stephen, Steve or Steverino?"

I do. That is, I disagree with your premise. To accuse those intending to defend the country against terrorists of dismantling the Constitution, especially when they aren't, or the values of this country, which has been under attack by liberals for almost 50 years now, or of explointing 3000 dead civilians when it was their murder that has motivated this defense, is contemptable and amongst the things I dislike about our country. Which is to say, that what I dislike about America is that there are too many who say that those who are best for the nation are the worst for it.

So, will y'all give Brit Hume heck if he's as softball as you believe Chris Matthews' was hardball?

I haven't read the entire transcript, but many of the questions that I read were the sorts of questions that I and I think a great number of my fellow citizens would want asked. I don't want moderators (for either the Dem or Republican debates) to give softball questions.

I saw the debate and they had reruns and re-streaming video on Cspan.com. Or they did have.

What were we going to expect with "Nutball" with Chris Matthews being the moderator?

Personally I think this whole thing is way to early for all this mess but since the Dems upped to Primary to February I guess now is the time to get in or get off the pot so to speak.

On my post I just threw out a name and wanted everyone who would respond all 4 of you lol j/k to get thier opinions on a man named Ron Paul.

Ken over at TLLTCT and I have been getting bombarded by Ron Paul supporters, and I'll tell ya the guy is OUT THERE!!!

But we knew already that with Nutball w/ Chris Matthews being the moderator they were going to try to get them to take a stab at President Bush. Fortunately none of them took the bait.

But that question asked of Romney was stupid, I mean (What do you NOT like about America?) Please!!!

Pulling up questions from idiot Democrats on the Internet trying to get stupid responses out of stupid questions obviously getting Romney to take a stab not at a party in General but about America was the most idiotic thing I ever heard.

All in all I think they all did well with the exception of the idiot Ron Paul whose agenda is Impeaching President Bush among other wild things, and what really galls me is Ron Paul is a Libertarian, turned Republican for his own political reasons showing up at the Reagan Library for this debate trying to look Reaganesque when he is anything but!!!

What I dislike about America are so-called Americans who want to dismantle the U.S. Constitution and the values of this country in the name of bigotry and on the backs of the 3000 dead, in the 9/11 attacks.

Who disagrees? Reveal yourselves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I cant believe you uttered those words.

Dismantle the Constitution? Hardly!

Have you been affected by the Terrorist Survielence Program? I dont think you have been unless you are comminicating with Al-Queda you have nothing to worry about dufuss.

You honestly believe the Dems were less similar between each other than were the Republicans? That's rich.

And speaking of rich, I don't have any problem whatsoever with the net worth of the Republican candidates. Why should I? They've attained the American dream to a level most don't even try for, and some, like yourself, don't even understand. And I may be wrong, but I don't think any of them married their wealth, like Kerry did.

Does it bother you, Dan that all the Democrats are basically the same? All support abortion, anti-war, increase taxes, redefine marriage, favor homosexual rights above all the rights of the majority and these are just a sample.There are differences in the Republican candidates and there are a few that I definitely favor over others. Since I was a married woman before you were even born and voted Democrat for almost as many years as your age......there is not a single Democrat I want to vote for now.

2. Mom, re: "Since I was a married woman before you were even born ..." Didja walk 12 miles to school, uphill, in the snow, every day too? I'm ribbin' ya. But you often seem to equate age with wisdom. Some people just get older, not wiser.

Dan, I agree with you there. There is no reason to get snippy with someone who asks an honest question.

I wonder though, how honest the question really was. It surely looked to be a divisive question, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

My answer to your question is no. It doesn't bother me in the least.

I believe you must be referring to race and gender of the candidates, because all the Democratic candidates are wealthy, some even more wealthy than the Republican candidates (john Edwards, for example).

There are a few black politicians, one of them a black woman (Condoleeza Rice), that I wouldn't mind seeing run for President, but they didn't enter the race this year.

The last two Presidential campaigns saw Alan Keyes enter the race early on, and I supported him, but his campaign never really got off the ground. I don't think it was because of his race, as far as the Republican party was concerned. He is apparently simply too honest and morally upright to be President in my view. He had hoped to garner the Black vote but he was torpedoed by Democrats who continually referred to him as an Uncle Tom and a traitor to his race, etc.

Yes, there are many similarities between the Republican candidates as you mentioned, but likewise, there are many similarities between Democratic candidates as well. The ideologies that define the two parties is why some people identify themselves with either the Democratic party or the Republican party. So it isn't the least surprising that there are so many similarities between candidates. It is what their constituency demands.

For my part, I find it extremely disturbing that politics is a game reserved for the wealthy. This is true in general for Dems and Republicans.

(With the note that, at least in this election, we have Kucinich running who grew up poor and whom I don't believe to be especially wealthy today - that is, he isn't a millionaire. (Of course, all of us in the West our wealthy relative to the rest of the world).

I'm not suggesting that wealthy people shouldn't run for office - or old white guys - I'm just wanting to see more diversity in my choices. Both as far as background and as far as belief systems. I like having an actual choice as opposed to a choice of ten guys that are all pretty much the same.

I think it pretty impressive that the Dems (and I have MANY faults with them - I'm a Green Party kind of guy) have as front runners, an African American, a hispanic and a woman and that, in all likelihood, one of them will be the next president.

I think it pretty impressive that the Dems (and I have MANY faults with them - I'm a Green Party kind of guy) have as front runners, an African American, a hispanic and a woman and that, in all likelihood, one of them will be the next president.

Impressive? Why? Since when is sex or skin color supposed to have a bearing on whether someone should be a candidate. I find your statement racist and sexist.

The election is not about race or sex. It's about issues. I'll vote for someone sight unseen if their platform is right.

Give me a black/hispanic/woman/fill-in-the-minority-blank whose ideals and beliefs match mine and that's who I am going to vote for.

The point is not that old rich white guys can't be good representatives. The point I was hoping to make was that, if that was ALL my party were attracting in way of candidates, I'd be concerned that we weren't truly representing everyone.

I love the fact that the US is a melting pot. I want my representatives and candidates to reflect that reality.

Reverse the situation: What if the Green Party consistently and nearly ONLY ran poor gay men for office and their party meetings were dominated by poor gay men. Would that raise any red flags?

I would question the broader interests of the party. That wouldn't be to say that poor gay men couldn't be good representatives (not at all), but if they were the ONLY group that was representing that party, it would cause me to wonder. For their sake, they'd diversify themselves if they were smart and if they were interested in winning elections.

Dan, the upcoming election field has all old rich white men because they are the ones who entered the race. That's the only reason. Do you really think the Republican party won't allow minorities to run? Candidacy is open to anyone who thinks they can win, or at least, wants to make a statement.

By the way, you should leave the word "rich" out of that statement. Wealth is relative. To Bill Gates, Ted Kennedy is a pauper. To me, someone who makes 100,000 a year is wealthy.

I wish Condoleeza Rice would run. I would vote for her for president if she won the nomination, but she is not my choice for President. She supports abortion.

I'm just saying that, if I were still a Republican, it would concern me that my party was perceived as the party of rich white guys. That would be yet another reason why I personally left the Republican Party (in addition to the stuff about corruption that you've heard me moan about).

Thinking Blogger Award Recipient

Followers

About Me

I don't borrow, cut and paste, or otherwise echo other Conservative blogs and talk show hosts. I sometimes refer to other opinion pieces, but the opinions presented herein are my own. Just because some talk show hosts or bloggers sometimes say the same things I do, any apparent similarities between myself and other commentators is purely coincidental.